Last Modified: 2003-09-30
The current tasks of the WG are limited to:
- Revise and clarify the base BGP4 document (RFC 1771). Note that RFC 1771 no longer documents existing practice and one goal of the update is document existing practice. Determine whether the document can be advanced as full Standard or needs to recycle at Proposed or Draft Standard.
- Submit updated base BGP4 MIB to accompany the revised base BGP4 document.
Once these tasks are finished (means WG consensus, WG Last Call, AD Review, IETF Last Call, and IESG approval for publication), work will progress on the following:
- Review and Evaluate Existing RFCs on AS Confederations and Route Reflection. If changes are needed, create and advance revisions.
- Review and evaluate Multiprotocol BGP (RFC 2858) for advancement as Draft Standard.
- Progress BGP Extended Communities along standards track.
- Extend BGP to support a 4-byte AS number, develop plan for transitioning to usage of 4-byte AS numbers. Advance support for a 4-byte AS numbers along standards track.
- Produce BGP MIB v2 that includes support for AS Confederations, Route Reflection, Communities, Multi-Protocol BGP, BGP Extended Communities, support for 4-byte AS numbers.
- Progress along the IETF standards track a BGP-based mechanism that allows a BGP speaker to send to its BGP peer a set of route filters that the peer would use to constrain/filter its outbound routing updates to the speaker. Currently defined in draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-03.txt.
- Progress along standards track an Outbound Router Filter (ORF) type for BGP, that can be used to perform aspath based route filtering. The ORF-type will support aspath based route filtering as well as regular expression based matching for address groups. Currently defined in draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-00.txt.
- Progress a BGP Graceful Restart mechanism along standards track.
- Progress Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message along standards track.
- Progress AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 along standards track.
- Progress Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 along standards track.
Tasks for this working group are limited to those listed above; new items to be added to the charter must be approved by the IESG.
|Done||Submit to BGP Capability Advertisement to the IESG|
|Jan 03||Submit BGP4 document to IESG.|
|Jan 03||Submit updated base BGP4 MIB to IESG.|
|Jan 03||Submit BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis to IESG|
|Mar 03||Submit BGP Graceful Restart to IESG|
|Mar 03||Submit revised text on Multi-Protocol BGP (rfc2858bis) to IESG|
|Mar 03||Submit BGP MIB v2 to IESG|
|Mar 03||Submit Extended Communities draft to IESG.|
|May 03||Submit 4-byte AS ID to IESG|
|May 03||Submit Outbound Route Filter, Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG|
|May 03||Submit Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message to IESG|
|May 03||Submit AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 to IESG|
|May 03||Submit Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 to IESG|
|RFC1105||E||Border Gateway Protocol BGP|
|RFC1164||H||Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet|
|RFC1163||H||A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)|
|RFC1267||H||A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)|
|RFC1268||H||Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet|
|RFC1269||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3)|
|RFC1266||I||Experience with the BGP Protocol|
|RFC1265||I||BGP Protocol Analysis|
|RFC1364||PS||BGP OSPF Interaction|
|RFC1397||PS||Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of The Border Gateway Protocol|
|RFC1403||PS||BGP OSPF Interaction|
|RFC1656||I||BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation Experience|
|RFC1657||DS||Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2|
|RFC1654||PS||A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)|
|RFC1655||PS||Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet|
|RFC1745||PS||BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction|
|RFC1771||DS||A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)|
|RFC1773||I||Experience with the BGP-4 protocol|
|RFC1774||I||BGP-4 Protocol Analysis|
|RFC1863||E||A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing|
|RFC1930||BCP||Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)|
|RFC1965||E||Autonomous System Confederations for BGP|
|RFC1966||E||BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP|
|RFC1998||I||An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing|
|RFC1997||PS||BGP Communities Attribute|
|RFC2270||I||Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a Single Provider|
|RFC2283||PS||Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4|
|RFC2385||PS||Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option|
|RFC2439||PS||BGP Route Flap Damping|
|RFC2519||I||A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation|
|RFC2545||PS||Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing|
|RFC2796||PS||BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP|
|RFC2842||Standard||Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4|
|RFC2858||PS||Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4|
|RFC2918||PS||Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4|
|RFC3065||PS||Autonomous System Confederations for BGP|
|RFC3345||I||Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route Oscillation Condition|
|RFC3392||DS||Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4|
|RFC3562||I||Security Requirements for Keys used with the TCP MD5 Signature Option|
---------------------------------------- ------------------------- 1. IDR Documents status update Y. Rekhter ======================= See slides IDR Charter Update Y. Rekhter =========================== See Slides 2. draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-00 Sue Hares ================================ The intent of this proposal is to provide a mechanism by which both peers can become aware of a prefix limit. If the number of prefixes approaches the known limit, both peers can provide warning to their respective operators, and even if the limit is reached, both devices can behave in a manner to preserve network stability until the operators can address the cause of the excessive prefix condition. In addition, the option to terminate the session is retained in order to protect the BGP receiver, if the BGP sender ignores the limit. The basic function proposed here is for a BGP receiver which implements a limit on the number of prefixes which it will accept (a "maximum prefix limit") to send an advertisement of that limit to its peer BGP sender, at the time the peering session is initiated. That is, a BGP receiver configured with a maximum-prefix limit notifies its peer BGP sender of the limit, so that the sender should automatically restrict the number of prefixes it announces, in order to comply with the limit. Three level response: 90% generates warning at 100%, BGP speaker stops sending at 110%, BGP listener drops session John Scudder: Three functions could support this feature now. These are: remote logging, ORF, inform. You might want to collapse these functions into existing proposals (ORF, inform). Hares: Inform is not widely deployed. Binam(?): I am surprised that providers do not maintain explicit import policies that prevent them from accepting every route that a customer might advertise. Hares: VPN providers may not maintain such policies. (Note that a service provider is among the authors.) Enke Chen: Dropping after prefix limit is exceeded is a bad idea. It is better to disable AFI. Current implementations only have warning and action level. Draft should also have 2 levels. Scudder: You only need one number. A limit. Ash: We need this. Bonica: We need three numbers; warning, speaker stops sending and listener drops session. 3. draft-chen-bgp-avoid-collision-00 Enke Chen =================================== To simplify the BGP session bringup logic, in this document we propose a revision that allows a BGP speaker to play only the active or the passive role in establishing a BGP connection with another BGP speaker. A BGP speaker determines whether it will play the active or passive role based on the AS numbers and/or the peering addresses involved. Backward compatiblility required. Gracefull restart required. Yakov: According to the spec, you must send an notification if you close due to collision Enke: All implementations don't do that Rajeesh Kumar: If server detects connection is gone, it has to wait for client to re-establish. Hares: could be misconfigured? Enke: No, larger AS number is active Gargi: Proabability of connection collision first time is high. Hakkivori: ????? Jeff Pickering: problem with tie breaker using remote access. you may not know your source address Enke: disagress Jeff Pickering: you don't know that peers source will be what you send Alex Zinin: we will have to support the old code for years Enke: do randomn backoff Alex Zinin: are you assuming that you won't have to support the old code? Dan Indrieden: Active passive decision should be configured, not determined Raj: does this make a difference, since there are only a few implementations of BGP Scudder: this is backward compatible. 4. draft-py-idr-redisfilter-00 Michel Py ========= What this draft is: A mechanism to distribute filtering information. Bogon filtering is only one example of filtering information. The objective is to standardize the mechanism. Idea: re-use ORF mechanisms. The ORF specifications are not modified; what is required is a syntax enhancement that is mostly a matter of implementation. Scudder: 1)may be you want to publish this and do it. There isn't any new protocol to standardize. 2) Have you looked at Pedro Marques flowspec document? 3) Is the single server a single point of failure, target for malicious attack 5. draft-nalawade-bgp-soft-notify-00 Gargi Nalawade, Keyur Patel, John Scudder, David Ward ====================================================== Currently there is no mechanism available for two BGP Speakers to communicate the occurrence of an error-condition other than through a BGP NOTIFICATION Message. The problem is that a NOTIFICATION message resets the peering session and terminates the connection. If a peer wants to gracefully recover from an error or wants to warn its peer about the occurrence of a BGP-related event, there is no mechanism currently available to do that. The proposed BGP SOFT-NOTIFICATION message is a mechanism to notify a remote peer of an error-condition or an event without resetting or terminating the BGP session. The purpose of this message is to provide the ability to soft-reset a particular AFI/SAFI without disrupting other BGP AFI/SAFIs or sections. - New Soft noticication message and soft notification ACK - Inform is for logging only; soft notification can also take an action 6. draft-nalawade-bgp-update-v2-00 Gargi Nalawade, Himanshu Shah ============ The current version of the BGP UPDATE Message has evolved from its original definition for IPv4 Unicast AFI/SAFI. The use of new AFI/SAFIs in BGP has caused the MP_REACH and MP_UNREACH attributes to be defined. But the attributes such as NEXTHOP still continued to apply only to IPv4 Unicast. It is only defined to carry an IPv4 address. This has forced several workarounds over the years such as carrying the Nexthop corresponding to the AFI/SAFI inside the MP_REACH/MP_UNREACH attribute. Carrying non-IPv4 NLRIs in the MP_REACH/MP_UNREACH attribute itself is a workaround to the fact that the NLRI section only applies to IPv4 Unicast routes. Also, the current BGP UPDATE Message starts out as being generic such that it could apply to any AFI/SAFI - until an MP_REACH/MP_UNREACH section is encountered. Only then can it be decided whether to use the NEXTHOP attribute or the NEXTHOP encoded in the MP_REACH attribute as the applicable NEXTHOP. The MP_REACH/MP_UNREACH attribute needs to be successfully parsed to identify the AFI/SAFI to which the UPDATE Message applies. Thus, if there is an error in the section preceding the MP_REACH attribute, the whole BGP session and other AFI/SAFIs running on the same saession are impacted. This does not protect one AFI/SAFI from being impacted by the other AFI/SAFIs on the same session - in case of AFI/SAFI specific errors that make it impossible to parse the MP_REACH/ MP_UNREACH section. The proposed BGP UPDATE-v2 message proposes solving all of the above-mentioned problems. BGP UPDATE-v2 will enable separation of updates belonging to different AFI/SAFI and an error in attribute can be isolated to a particular AFI/SAFI. 7. draft-scudder-bgp-multisession John Scudder ============= This specification augments "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4" by proposing a mechanism to allow multiple sessions to be used between a given pair of BGP speakers. Each session is used to transport routes for one or more AFI/SAFI. This provides an alternative to the current MP-BGP approach of multiplexing routes for all AFI/SAFI onto a single connection. Use of this approach is expected to increase the robustness of the BGP protocol as it is used to support more and more diverse AFI/SAFI. Discussion on (5), (6), and (7). ================================ Parantap: frightened by multiple afi/safis. frightened by amount of change to BGP. Parantap: perhaps we could use reliable UDP, instead of making all these changes to BGP. Yakov: Would you be frightened by reliable UDP ? Parantap: Then perhaps we could use unreliable UDP. Yakov: Would you be frightened to use unreliable transport for delivering incremental updates ? Yakov: If folks are frightened by changes in BGP then we should immediately stop the WG meeting, close the WG, and go to the bar. That was greeted by a round of applause. Scudder: design goal is to minimize number of changes to BGP Gargi: If changing the BGP transport is thought to minimize the changes to the BGP protocol, that assumption is not right. That in fact would involve lot of changes to the BGP protocol, Spec & FSM. Rahul: please compare and contrast the drafts? 2) Would like to see discussion on percieved problem with multiple loopbacks. Why not? Chavali: 3 comments in the soft notify draft: 1. The Cease codes are peer event related and not AFI/SAFI specific. The draft sets out to address AFI/SAFI events. Peer event related codes are already handled by existing/proposed mechanisms. 2. Each Update code causes persistent resets of AFI/SAFI per code. The root cause here is that the peer's implementation code that causes bad Atttributes. That needs to be fixed rather than adding more processing in the protocol. 3. Light weighted non-fatal warning mechanism per AFI/SAFI in this draft would be useful. Acee: Too many ways to group. Do we really need all of this flexibility? Alex: if the length field is incorrect, can you trust the next PDU? Yakov: if the legth field is incorrect, then Gargi's proposal results in terminating BGP session for all the AFI/SAFI carried in the session, thus failing to provide isolation among multiple AFI/SAFIs, and therefore failing to provide isolation among different applications that use BGP. In contrast, Scudder proposal does not have this problem as different AFI/SAFI need not share the same BGP session. Andrew Lang: ???? Enke: Passive active simplfies multiple session Scudder: already simple, but wouldn make it